Introduction

The film industry frequently encounters legal challenges surrounding creative interpretations of real-life events. A recent instance involved the movie Haq, a production starring Emraan Hashmi and Yami Gautam Dhar. Ahead of its scheduled release, the movie found itself at the centre of a legal controversy when a petition was filed seeking to restrain its exhibition.

The petition, filed by Siddiqua Begum, who claims to be the daughter of the late Shah Bano, demanded a ban on the film's release and its promotional activities. The core dispute revolved around the film’s inspiration: the historic 1985 Supreme Court case, Mohd Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum, which profoundly reshaped Indian legal and social discourse.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Siddiqua Begum, approached the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, contending that Haq drew directly from the life and personal experiences of her mother, Shah Bano.

The primary allegations were twofold: first, the filmmakers allegedly exploited personal details and portrayed Shah Bano’s story without the family’s consent. Second, the petitioner argued that the film misused these personal details under the guise of creative liberty, thereby infringing upon the family’s privacy. The petitioner also contended that the script and dialogues were fabricated and sensationalized, suggesting they were not drawn from any legitimate or judicial source.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner’s case centred on protecting the dignity and privacy of her late mother, Shah Bano, whose personal life served as the inspiration for the film. The petitioner argued that the portrayal was potentially false or fabricated, sensationalizing private aspects of her mother’s life. It was argued that the film distorted the personalities and private lives of individuals, and the contents were not legitimately sourced. Furthermore, the lack of prior consent from the family was cited as a basis for demanding a ban.

Respondents’ Submissions

The legal team representing the film Haq strongly refuted these claims. They maintained that the film was not a biographical retelling. Instead, it was clarified that Haq was "inspired" by the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the Shah Bano case. The filmmakers highlighted that the story drew inspiration from the publicly published novel, Bano, Bharat Ki Beti, written by Jigna Vora. They asserted that the narrative focused primarily on the public court proceedings rather than intimate, personal family matters. Crucially, the filmmakers stated that the movie included a clear disclaimer indicating that it is a dramatization, fictional, and an adaptation.

The respondents also pointed out that the film had already secured a UA 13+ Certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on August 28. They argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available—approaching the Central Government to revoke or suspend the censor certificate under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act—which she failed to utilize before approaching the High Court directly.

Court’s Observations and Reasoning

Justice Pranay Verma, presiding over the matter, delivered a detailed legal assessment before rejecting the plea.

On Privacy and Public Record

A cornerstone of the court's reasoning addressed the right to privacy. The Court held that the privacy or reputation earned by a person during their lifetime extinguishes upon their death and cannot be inherited like property. Since Shah Bano is no longer alive, her right to privacy and reputation has ceased. The Court noted that the petitioner did not claim her own privacy or reputation had been violated by the film.

Referencing Supreme Court precedent, the Court stated that once a matter becomes part of the public record—such as court records—the right of privacy no longer subsists. The film, being largely inspired by publicly available court records, becomes a legitimate subject for comment by the Press and Media. Therefore, the respondents were not obligated to seek prior consent from the petitioner before releasing the film.

On Artistic Freedom and Prior Restraint

The High Court accepted the filmmaker’s stance regarding artistic freedom and the use of fiction. Since the film includes a disclaimer stating it is fictional, a dramatization, and an adaptation inspired by a judgment, the contents cannot be deemed fabricated or a sensationalization/false portrayal. The Court observed that because the film is an inspiration and fiction, "some amount of leeway is certainly permissible". Since the movie does not claim to be a true story, the contention that it distorts personalities was deemed unacceptable.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out the petitioner's delay and lack of vigilance, noting that the petition was preferred on 1 November 2025, less than a week before the scheduled release date (7 November 2025), and after the CBFC certificate had already been granted. This 

conduct was viewed as suffering from delay and laches.

Final Verdict

The Madhya Pradesh High Court unequivocally rejected the plea filed by Siddiqua Begum. The decision cleared the way for the Emraan Hashmi–Yami Gautam Dhar starrer to be released as scheduled.

The Court’s ruling implicitly directed litigants towards established statutory processes, noting that the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy under the Cinematograph Act to challenge the CBFC certification, instead of straightaway petitioning the High Court.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment serves as a vital affirmation of artistic freedom and reinforces established legal principles against prior restraint in India.

• First, the decision strongly establishes that a person’s right to privacy and reputation does not survive their death, significantly limiting claims made by heirs against artistic works inspired by deceased individuals whose stories are already in the public domain.
• Second, it provides crucial protection to filmmakers, emphasizing that when a work is clearly presented as fictional, inspirational, and based on public records, creative license is permissible. 
• Finally, the judgment underscores the judiciary's hesitation to interfere with films that have already received certification, especially when petitioners have failed to exhaust alternative remedies available under specialized statutes.

Conclusion

The MP High Court’s rejection of the petition against Haq exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to cautious intervention when asked to restrict artistic expression. By upholding the principles of public record, the extinguishment of privacy rights upon death, and allowing reasonable leeway for fictional adaptation, the ruling reinforces the boundary between creative inspiration and actionable defamation, ensuring that statutory processes and constitutional freedoms are respected.